Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[mariomike]

They made a DVD on the subject ( Chain Gangs ), if interested:
http://chaingangpictures.com/ACFILMPAGE.htm

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Chain gang

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2G1801PAo

 

[Fishbone Jones]

...............or this ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

 

[PMedMoe]

How about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3uf5V0pDA

;D

 

[a_majoor]

I actually recoiled at the idea of chain gangs when it was foirst presented, mostly due to the usual Legacy Media spin which implied that it was involuntary servitude (i.e. slavery). Now if the cons can volunteer to join a chain gang to earn credits towards various good things (which is what the program is really all about), then it is indeed a positive step.

As noted above, it won't be cheap, but if there is a positive correlation between serving on the chain gang and reduced instances of re-offending then it is worth going for. In fact I'd be all for a comprehensive review of all aspects of the prison system to identify what factors work to prevent re offending and strengthen them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Please see this. These debates about progressives vs the Tea Party are sterile because neither group matters - not one tiny little bit. The Americans have abandoned responsible government in favour of a clash of increasingly narrow interest groups. Canadians are in danger of doing the same. Obama, Boehner and Paul are all clowns in face paint and fancy dress; they are leading a parade of court jesters round and round a May pole.

 

[Redeye]

I'm not sure if you misquoted or something else, but the quote you posted doesn't exist in this thread. What was it in reference to?

Edit: Nevermind, appears to be a deleted post.

He must have been quick, the post was up for maybe three minutes before I thought better of it and pulled it.  However, it doesn't change my opinion of the drivel which I responded to.  I really need to stop interacting with such stupidity.

 

[observor 69]

I really need to stop interacting with such stupidity.

OK take a deep  breath and go to your "Happy Place."    >

 

[a_majoor]

Here is an interesting exercise; a Conservative blogger interpreting the principles of the NDP. Since there is no publicly available party constitution, this is based mostly on interpretation of public statements, policy and election platforms that are out there for everyone to read. So far as I have been able to determine, this seems to be a fair assessment of what is being presented to us:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/05/quite-possibly-most-logical-argument.html

Quite possibly the most logical argument ever from an "NDPer". (Sadly, written by a conservative)

The NDP will not release their constitution, and since I have not seen any logical arguments from the NDP that I can 'unpack and dismantle', I have been led to contrive my own argument for NDP's Constitution…as best possible. I am pretending to be a NDPer…so go easy on me. I do think I am working with lots of contradictions, but I am going to do my best to make it as 'logical as possible'.  I used a 'mock name' to hide the author's identity ; )

Dear Fellow Canadians,

I am "Jantzi Ryan" the official Boss for the NDP party of Canada.

I acknowledge that our constitution is not available for your analysis and understanding.  We believe Canadians ought to know what principles govern our party.  You will soon have our constitution: our best minds are working on it.  I have been given information that the following principles will be in our platform:

We believe in a government planned economy (government controls means of production and distribution) with respect to 'big business'.  We believe in the moderate 'free market' with respect to small business.

There will be no end to poverty, aid for seniors and real education for students unless we recognize that the vast majority of  'limited resources' ought not be horded by big business (banks, oil companies etc).  Once these 'windfall profits' are transferred to government for expansion of programs, we will finally affect people's lives being improved and helped.  Since banks modus operandi is profit, not the well being of the people, we will right this wrong by transferring profit from banks to the government.  We do not believe Canadians are ready for us to own the banks, therefore we will not seek to control means of production and distribution via ownership, but rather higher taxes and capping their ability to make a profit (prime + 5% on credit cards for starters).  We are giving out 'rebates' to small business owners who hire because it represents an important criteria of our mandate; provide opportunity for all Canadians.  Since small business generates opportunity for the worker, and there are not typically 'windfall profits', this strategy best 'levels the playing field' given our current Country's state.  In summary, limit 'massive corporations' from devaluing Canadians by limiting their profits via taxation and laws.  Transfer (redistribute sounds to "Carl Marx-ish") profit into social spending; hereafter called 'investing in Canadians'.

We believe in equality, fairness and opportunity for all Canadians.

Poverty, discrimination and intolerance all have one thing in common, they attack and truncate basic rights of all Canadians.  Canada's resources and wealth is vast.  Massive corporate profits undermine these basic values, therefore we believe we are furthering the 'social justice' cause in Canada when we recognize this and move to make it right. Therefore, we will be setting forth proposals where you will see two components: 1. look at 'open enterprise' and 'free market' with caution (least reckless profits be made and horded away from social justice causes) and 2. draw money away from private sector and move it towards government programs. This rights the wrong when government takes authority via laws to limit profit and maximize social justice.  The 'right wingers' unfairly brands us as 'big spenders', but we will accomplish these goals without raising the debt of our Country.  We do not trust the fee market to protect the rights of Canadians.  They will not offer equality, fairness and opportunity for all.  The free market hires mostly men in high paying jobs, would have minimum wage at $4.00 if it could and exclude anyone they 'see fit'.  By the government highlighting these basic human rights then pointing out how the free market fails these people, we position ourselves to morally create laws that support this end.  This is how we use such words as 'compassion and fairness', because we are taking on the worker's struggles by assisting them from the reckless free market.

We believe it is the governments working responsibility to be people of action, recognizing there are many social needs.

We do believe in 'performance and results'.  We simply believe that the government ought to make the investment in people to ensure that everyone can attain high levels of performance and results together: this way, we know it's fair.  The free market attacks the less fortunate by 'leaving them behind'.  It is their right to not be left behind and by the NDP making these investments, we will be ensured of success for all Canadians, not just a privileged few.

Core principle:

You have likely seen the 'thread' running throughout this letter: the problem is the free market.  The free market is just that: free.  The cows will wander unless they are fenced in.  The children may crawl into danger if they are not given the safe restrictions of the crib.  People within the free market will exploit, degrade and devalue if it is not reigned in though significant limitations.  The reason we are 'progressive' is because we recognize this cannot be done over night.  We need to develop our Country into a less free market more and more, little by little.  We need your help.  Currently the 'free market' is quite popular, so we are developing our constitution to reflect how we can focus on our core values without sparking widespread condemnation and massive public outcry.  The right thinks 'regulations' will protect people, but as we have seen from the terrible recession of 08, regulations were too lax and failed the people.  The key is not to regulate the free market…it is to limit its potential and slowly move towards a more fair, democratic and loving society, one where everyone has a chance: not just the profit hoarders and privileged few.
We look forward to truly fighting for Canadians.

Jantzi Ryan
Boss of the Federal NDP Party of Canada

 

[a_majoor]

More on appearance vs reality:

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/  06 June 2011

JOHN EDWARDS: ILLEGAL CAD?

More than anything I am having a hard time understanding why it was wrong for John Edwards to take money from Bunny Mellon but perfectly acceptable for him to take cash and benefits from UNC-Chapel Hill. The trumped up, made up Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity my alma mater provided Edwards between February 2005 and December 2006, specifically.

It was widely understood that the position of center director (annual state salary $40,000, funded by private gifts to UNC) and the entire multi-million dollar edifice itself was created solely to keep Edwards’ political career kicking in the wake of the 2004 election cycle. The association with UNC in turn permitted Edwards to set up non-profits which expressly aided him in his “presentation” to the public, to the tune of millions of dollars.

That’s silly. This is a university we’re talking about!

UPDATE: A reader emails:
I found it interesting that you posted about UNC’s Center on Poverty. While attending law school in Chapel Hill, some friends in the Federalist Society and I ran a program that provided presents for kids from impoverished families in the community. Thinking that it would be a good way to reach across the aisle, we asked the Center on Poverty’s coordinator if the Center would like to co-sponsor or otherwise participate in the effort. The response we received was classic — we were told that the Center on Poverty existed to facilitate discussion of the underlying issues of poverty, not to assist in the alleviation of poverty. Sort of flies in the face of the grand old state’s motto, esse quam videri, doesn’t it?

 

[a_majoor]

Another slight of mind trick:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/

Why the Hypocrisy Defense is political suicide for liberalism
Posted By Zombie On June 6, 2011 @ 5:24 pm In Uncategorized | 136 Comments

All across the internet over the last few hours, liberal commenters and bloggers have fallen back on one of their most trusted logical arguments in situations like this in which a Democrat is caught in a sex scandal: “At least he’s not a hypocrite.”

This sampling of (unedited) comments taken from today’s New York Times‘ and San Francisco Chronicle‘s articles about Anthony Weiner’s public confession are typical:

“Much to do about nothing. Please wake me up if you find out that he mishandled/stole taxpayer money, or had previously participated in some sort of moral clensing crusade.”

…and…

“Unless an elected official is a hypocrite (i.e., an anti-gay politician who espouses “family values” but solicits men for sex in public restrooms), I don’t care about his private life, including whether he sends naked pictures of himself to women who aren’t his wife.”

…and…

“I certainly find it reprehensible, particularly the lying. But he didn’t run on a Family Values moral superiority platform, like Ensign; there is less hypocracy and more simple stupidity here.”

A quick search of the liberal blogosphere and in the comments sections of MSM articles will turn up countless similar examples. If you spend any time on the Internet, you’ve undoubtedly encountered it yourself over and over, as others have noted. And it hasn’t just emerged in regards to Weinergate: It’s actually one of the bedrocks of the liberal worldview: Conservatives are hypocrites concerning moral issues, whereas liberals are not.

Which got me to thinking:

This has to be the weakest philosophical argument I’ve ever encountered.

Not just weak: self-extirpating.

If there ever was a moment to really dig down into the fundamental structure of this argument, this is it. So let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?

Sleight-of-mind

What liberals really really love about this stance is its climactic declaration: Our opponents are hypocrites!

Here is how the liberals present their case: (Hipocrisydiagram1.jpg)

But what they don’t want you to think about — and what they themselves don’t even want to acknowledge — is that this “hypocrites” howl is the second half of a two-part argument. And in that second half, they are the victors. But in the first half….

Well, for the “at least we’re not hypocrites” sentiment to make sense, there must be an agreed-upon starting point — one which the liberals themselves are confirming each time they make this argument. And what must that starting point necessarily be? For conservatives to be hypocrites when they do something immoral, then that means they must profess a moral ideology in the first place. And — here’s the key — for the liberals to be let off the hook when they do something immoral, then that means they must profess an ideology with no moral claims whatsoever.

Thus, the diagram above only showed you the climactic second half of the liberals’ sleight-of-mind trick. The full statement — including the first half which you’re not supposed to think about — would be diagrammed like this: (hipocrisydiagram2.jpg)

Not quite so effective an argument when seen this way, is it?

Now, I’m not here to defend hypocrisy — I hate it as much as the next person. I’m only here to point out that in order to lay claim to their “but at least we’re not hypocrites” defense, liberals must necessarily paint themselves into an impossible corner, defining themselves as the ideology of amorality.

Remember, that’s not my characterization of liberalism — that’s liberals’ own characterization of themselves when they use this argument.

Does that mean that the “fallen conservative” is inherently more appealing or “superior” in some way to the “honestly amoral liberal”? No. It actually comes down to each voter’s preference.

Consider these two statements from two different potential husbands:

“I know I promised to stop drinking forever, honey, but I fell off the wagon again; please forgive me, and I’ll really really try to stay sober from now on, but no guarantees.”

vs.

“I’m a tertiary alcoholic, a stone-cold drunk; always have been, always will be. You’re not likely to ever see me sober. Take it or leave it.”

If you had to choose, which would you marry?

Obviously, neither is very appealing, but the liberal stance is that the second potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s honest. The conservative stance is: The first potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s trying.

Within the parameters of this “Hypocrisy Defense”…Which do you think the general public prefers: An ideology that at least tries to champion a moral code, but whose adherents sometimes fail to live up to it; or an ideology that by its own definition is inherently immoral and whose adherents don’t even have a moral code to violate?

The liberals are taking a HUGE gamble that a majority of Americans will throw in their lot with the party of immorality. But I have the feeling they’ve lost that bet — not just in Weinergate, but at a deep structural level in society for a long time to come.

Article printed from Zombie: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/

 

[Redeye]

Another slight of mind trick:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/

Nonsense.

It's indeed much more a scandal when people who run on "family values" campaigns and the like then get caught in sordid sex scandals, and in recent memory, even without that consideration, it seems that there's a lot more of those happening on the right side (though they happen to both).  The hypocrisy claim that comes from liberals is directly pointed and all the drivel about the "sanctity of marriage" and the "moral majority" nonsense spewed by the right.

Weiner is an idiot - for what he did, and for how he handled it.  His worst offence in the eyes of many of my American liberal friends is legitimizing the scum-sucking bottomfeeder Andrew Breitbart for one brief, shining moment, though.  At the end of the day, he didn't break any laws, he didn't break his oath, and the matter is between him and his wife, and the voters in his district will make their position known come election time.

As one of them says, as long as Republican creep David Vitter still holds office, a man who actually was involved in a sex scandal involving actual sex, with a prostitute who he paid to diaper him no less, Weiner's just going to get on with his job.

The worst thing about this though is it provided a media sideshow distraction from there very, very disturbing revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas, who has committed serious tax offences, and appears to be unable to live up to the impartiality required/expected of a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Rifleman62]

Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.

 

[xena]

I'm thoroughly with TV on this one.

First though, I'll say Christian morality in it's entirety only applies to people who call themselves Christian.  Secularists, of course, are free to cherry-pick whatever seems compatible with their philosophy and inclinations.

Now, I generally cringe when I see some half educated TV preacher trying to put forth an argument that everyone has to follow his rules.  I just wanted to get that out of the way before anyone tries to be silly and accuse me of being homophobic, or "against" any particular group.  The only thing I'm really against is stupidity, and sadly that cuts across all lines.

But, the assumption that people that hold a belief in the sanctity of marriage, or any other tenent of Christian morality, or a belief even in the existence of a deity, are somehow intellectually or morally (however you may define that) deficient is completely unfounded.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Morals and religion ought to be wholly private matters; public "morality" ought to be confined to some simple combination of honesty and good manners.

As TV said, Weiner is not in need of any defence for hypocrisy - he never claimed to be anything he isn't. He isn't honest nor does he have good manners but neither need disqualify him from public office in the good ol' US of A, nor in Canada for that matter. The charge against which Weiner does need to defend himself is stupidity.

 

[Redeye]

I cannot let this go.  You have just legitimised the argument put forth in the blog.  That "drivel" about "the sanctity of marriage" isn't drivel.  It's a moral stand.  Yes, those who say one thing, yet to the complete opposite are hypocrites.  The blog isn't defending those guys, but instead attacking the defence of Mr. Weiner.

PS: "Moral Majority?"  Are you serious?  Guess what: 1985 called, they want their word of the day back  :

It is, in the eyes of many, many people in an increasing secular society complete drivel when it's spouted by people who don't take the words seriously themselves.  If marriage is so "sacred", then why aren't the "moral majority" (and the term is still in common use, though mainly in the pejorative sense I use it) after divorce?  I don't really think someone like a David Vitter or a John Ensign has much business talking about sanctity of marriage at all, just as I don't put much stock in attacks on equal rights for gays coming from a party which includes people busted for soliciting in airport restrooms or sending salacious emails to pages while keeping up the "family values" appearance.  Does that somehow mean that what Anthony Weiner did was somehow "less" "wrong"?  No.  It doesn't matter what party he belongs to or what ideology he espouses particularly, but at least he can't be tarred as a hypocrite particularly strongly.

As the always spot on Mr. Campbell said, his main fault in this is the abject stupidity of how he handled himself, and that in no way prevents him from holding office.

 

[Redeye]

But, the assumption that people that hold a belief in the sanctity of marriage, or any other tenent of Christian morality, or a belief even in the existence of a deity, are somehow intellectually or morally (however you may define that) deficient is completely unfounded.

To a degree I accept that - but point out that the reverse is also true.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It is, in the eyes of many, many people in an increasing secular society complete drivel when it's spouted by people who don't take the words seriously themselves.  If marriage is so "sacred", then why aren't the "moral majority" (and the term is still in common use, though mainly in the pejorative sense I use it) after divorce?  I don't really think someone like a David Vitter or a John Ensign has much business talking about sanctity of marriage at all, just as I don't put much stock in attacks on equal rights for gays coming from a party which includes people busted for soliciting in airport restrooms or sending salacious emails to pages while keeping up the "family values" appearance.  Does that somehow mean that what Anthony Weiner did was somehow "less" "wrong"? 

So, does the human failure of the messenger make the message any less important to those who support it, or any less valid?  If so, than we should all be jumping off the global warming band wagon, since it's biggest spokesman, Mr. Al Gore, has been noted as a huge hypocrite, living in a house that used 20 x the power of the average american household.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2007/02/27/al-gores-carbon-footprint/

I think this demonstrates well the original point... when your poor part time conservative family rights spokesman/part time closet homosexual is caught, he is automatically a hypocrite, but when the same is found on the liberal side, it's always just an attack.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, does the human failure of the messenger make the message any less important to those who support it, or any less valid?  If so, than we should all be jumping off the global warming band wagon, since it's biggest spokesman, Mr. Al Gore, has been noted as a huge hypocrite, living in a house that used 20 x the power of the average american household.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2007/02/27/al-gores-carbon-footprint/

I think this demonstrates well the original point... when your poor part time conservative family rights spokesman/part time closet homosexual is caught, he is automatically a hypocrite, but when the same is found on the liberal side, it's always just an attack.

I never got on that particular wagon in the first place. It has all the trappings of a 'honey' wagon (Stinks, leaks and is full of shit) 

 

[Redeye]

As a person who believes in the sanctity of marriage, tenents of Christian morality, and in the existence of a deity, to what degree do you accept that I am not intellectually or morally deficient?  And what "reverse" do you also hold true?


op:

Well, this is going off from the discussion at hand, but why not?  If nothing else, for the most part, we have some pretty interesting and generally civil and respectful conversations on different opinions on army.ca.

It comes down to this - I respect you have the right - the freedom - to believe whatever you want about the existence of the deities, about moral prinicples, and so on as I would expect my freedom to reject the idea of deity as well.  The key to it, in my view, is that so long as what you believe doesn't in any way impact my life directly, than it doesn't matter particularly.  What riles me is when religious ideas are used to impose a particular set of views on society which are to the detriment of that freedom in others.  That's why I don't want religion in classrooms, I don't want it being set on a pedestal equivalent to science, etc etc, or in any way being promoted (even tacitly) by the state.

The reverse I referred to, of course, is the suggestion that the atheist is amoral or somehow wrong for failing to believe the same as the theist.

The other problem I see frequently is that while some religious folks will suggest that atheists are amoral because morality comes whom whichever god they subscribe to, they seem to have a hard time holding themselves up to the standards they claim others should follow.  To me, it's far more reasonable to say that all people are fallible and accept that - and beyond that, the idea of absolute morality dictated by a supernatural force makes little sense.  There's a fair bit of research that suggests most of those basic ideas are evolved traits and observable in other members of the animal kingdom, for example.  And ultimately, it's social sanction that enforces morality, not a vague promise of eternal retribution (which, conveniently, most religions have a quick way out of).

Consider this: various religions impose rules upon their followers that may be difficult or unreasonable for them to follow, but then have some way out.  I recall a divorced Catholic explaining the process by which they got an annulment in order to be able to remarry and wondering how a marriage of many years that produced children could possibly be considered annulled in the eyes of the church, except to realize it's a matter of convenience to adapt rules to modern circumstances, just as most Christians dismiss most of the Levitical laws (except of course the one about homosexuality).

At the end of the day, though, what one believes is generally irrelevant to me unless they are seeking to impose it on others in any fashion.  In that case, then all bets are off.